Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Trump Jury Deliberates For 4.5 Hours, Sends Two Notes To Judge; Trump Team Plots How To Respond To Possible Guilty Verdict; Alito Rejects Calls For Recusal, Digs In On Blaming Wife; ISIS-K Threat References NY Stadium, Security Ramped Up; U.S. Does Not Rule Out Allowing Ukraine To Strike Russian Soil. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired May 29, 2024 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[19:00:36]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:

Breaking news, the jury asking questions, sending notes to the judge. I watched them at the courtroom today. The men and women now deciding Trump's fate, telling the judge they want to re-hear testimony from two key witnesses.

Plus, Justice Alito defiant tonight, refusing to recuse himself from cases tied to January 6, blaming his wife again and again in a rare letter to Congress. I'll talk to Congressman Jamie Raskin who says he knows how to force Alito to recuse.

And fear of a terror attack in New York. Police ramping up security tonight as ISIS-K suggests it may target a stadium that holds up to 34,000 people.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news, the jury sending out notes twice late today asking crucial questions, as Donald Trump's fate tonight hangs in the balance. Now, Trump's criminal trial is now in the hands 12 New Yorkers who are debating whether to convict Trump in the first criminal trial of an American president ever -- seven men and five women on that jury. They have been deliberating now for more than 4.5 hours.

And I was there today when they sent out two notes first, they asked for the transcript of testimony from two major witnesses, the former chief of the "National Enquirer", David Pecker and Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer.

The jury specifically asked for the testimony of each of those people, Cohen and Pecker, regarding a crucial meeting in Trump Tower in August 2015. That's where prosecutors said Trump, Cohen and Pecker hatched the plan, conspired to boost Trump's chances of winning the election by buying and killing negative stories.

Now, asking of that specific meeting is important and testimony of the two people who testified who were in that meeting, Pecker's testimony had been overall damning for the former president. He had four days on the stand providing salacious details about Trump's alleged affairs and efforts to conceal them before the election.

Now, the jury also wanted details -- other details from Pecker's testimony that includes information about the former playmate, Karen McDougal, who had said she had nearly a year long affair with Trump. Now, while the jury was meeting today, the former president had to be there every time they do a note, they come back in the room -- the judge, the jury and the president, a former president, and the lawyers, and otherwise, he's sitting in a room off the side, waiting on the jury like everybody else. He had nothing to do, apparently.

So he fired off more than 50 social media posts in a room somewhere near that courtroom waiting and he attacked the judge again and again as well as others. But Juan Merchan laying out great detail, the jury instructions which Trump slammed.

I want to hold these up because this is actually really important tonight. This is 55 pages. It's not determine whether he's guilty or innocent and maybe like a couple of paragraphs, I mean, it's 55 pages, look at it, of a jury instructions on how to determine this case, how with the jury should do to reach their verdict.

Now, here's what's amazing. The jury does not have these instructions. They actually don't have them. It's sort of incredible, 55 pages laying out the rules to convict or acquit, former president of the United States, first in history, and they're supposed to remember the 55 pages, which brings me to the next note that the jury actually sent out today. They asked for those instructions to also be read tomorrow.

And the judge is saying, well, what specific part. So they're going to -- they're going to clear that up in the morning.

But Trump, of course, as very upset about the instructions. He's not happy with them and he spoke out about it today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would say it listening to the charges from the judges. As you know, very conflicted and corrupt because of the confliction, very, very corrupt. Mother Teresa could not beat these discharges. These charges are rigged, the whole thing is rigged.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: The new word confliction.

Well, Paula Reid is OUTFRONT, outside the courthouse -- as you have been into fatigability as we say, Paula.

So, everybody is trying to read tea leaves on these notes from the jury, right? First, they asked for four pieces of testimony to be re- read, including crucial testimony about that meeting, testimony about Karen McDougal, then they came back and asked for the jury instructions to be read again. What are you learning?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. My favorite thing about today, Erin, oh, what are the unique features of the New York court system is that when the jury has something to say to the court, they have to bring a buzzer and then we hear this buzzer. Everyone freaks out and then we wonder, what do they need?

And we learned today, they sent these two notes. The first one was that they want to hear more testimony and we know that they have a laptop, that includes a lot of evidence from this trial, but it does not include transcripts from testimony, from witnesses in this case.

[19:05:07]

So they asked for four specific pieces of testimony, three of which are from David Pecker. They asked for a testimony about a call Pecker had with Trump, details that Pecker testified to about the deal that was reached with Karen McDougal, Pecker's testimony about the Trump Tower meeting, and then Michael Cohen's testimony about that same meeting.

Now, what was really interesting is that the judge locked both the defense attorneys and the prosecutors in the courtroom until they could agree about exactly what the jury will hear back. Let the jury go home, but he said, look, you're not leaving until both sides agree on what were going to read them back related to this testimony tomorrow.

Now, the judge still needs to settle a few disputes, but tomorrow, 9:30, we'll be back here, a court will kick off, as the court reader, the court reporter, she will sit on the witness stand and she will reread these portions of testimony back to the jury.

Now, as you also noted, they've also asked for the jury instructions to be read to them. The judges and clear though they need all 55 pages or just parts of it.

Now, Erin, that was a surprise that they asked for that. It suggests that there was some disagreement about what they just heard a few hours of before. But when it comes to the testimony, the fact that they're asking you about the 2015 Trump Tower meeting, the prosecutors allege was the first step in this conspiracy, that suggests, Erin, they're going through chronologically and that would also suggest we could be here for awhile.

BURNETT: Yeah. In the second part about being important, right? If you're going chronologically, you are -- you are at the very beginning.

All right. Paula, thank you very much.

And on our panel is here with me.

Mark O'Mara, I want to start with you just as you take a look at where we are. You have four-plus hours in, it was just before I want to say 3:00 when the first note came out, we all came running into here and it was requesting those four pieces of testimony, and then about a half an hour later, 20 minutes later or so, the next request for the actual jury instructions to be read back.

So when you take all this and you have four-plus hours in, what do you think at this point?

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think they're doing it very well. I think they're doing it chronologically as was just said. There's two ways or two reasons sometimes you want a transcript. One is the simplistic one. I thought she said the light was red. No, I believe she said the light was green and they bring out the transcript to resolve conflict, in fact, as remembered by the jury.

I will tell you, it doesn't seem to me what's happening here now that we know they're asking four different transcripts about the same event, that one event that may be the first step in the conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution. So I think it's good that they're going through it logically. Somebody said a couple of days ago might be one hour jury, and I think the rest of her said, one hour verdict, we said no way.

And I think they should take to time. It's a very, very significant case. I think they are, and I think they have a lot more work to do through tomorrow and maybe the next day.

BURNETT: All right. So, Harry, you've been in there every -- every day of the trial and you spent a lot of time watching the jury. Obviously, I think what was so interesting today is that, you know, it's empty and then sudden the note comes out. I mean, it's like back to the 1850s.

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: By Friday, at those phones, everybody like rats in the cave.

BURNETT: And then we all go running in and then the jury and the judge and it comes out. Okay. And then they put their requests in.

But you have spent a lot of time watching the jury all the way through this. Kristen Holmes, who obviously covers the Trump campaign, she's reporting Trump's team believes there are one or two jurors in particular that could deliver them a mistrial.

What -- what's your take on the jury?

LITMAN: Look, that fact is unremarkable. We're exactly at the stage where people are, you know, every little thing, your tease out in 16 different directions. Each party made their final now calls for jury selection. Remember, and they took a couple of risks. And its just part of the trial lawyer's ardor obsession, they're focused very much on the jury, and I think it stands to reason for each of them, was number seven kind of smiling when that you're -- that you just -- there's a lot of --

(CROSSTALK)

BURNETT: -- somebody that seemed to nod when J.D. Vance was in the room, a supporter of Trump.

LITMAN: There you go. Yeah.

BURNETT: In particular, a lot of eyes on that juror.

LITMAN: That's right. So, in other words, the fact that they say, oh, we think there are one or two who could be holdouts says essentially nothing. Every trial you would have something like that and you'd be focused on an exactly now.

BURNETT: All right. So as you're in the courtroom today and you see this jury going in and out, what do you read into it? I mean, clearly, they're taking their time and they've paid attention all the way through. But what's your take on them now?

TERRI AUSTIN, FORMER TRIAL ATTORNEY: I think the questions are excellent. The fact that they are looking for Pecker's testimony compared to Cohen's testimony at that August 2015 meeting in Trump Tower, it can mean a couple of things. Yes, they're starting at the beginning. We already know Michael Cohen is already deemed an accomplice, so maybe what they're trying to do is to see if his testimony has been corroborated because the judge said it has to be corroborated. So that's what I think they're looking for there.

And as far as the other two questions, I think they want more details about what is Pecker thinking? Is he credible? Because those other two questions had to do with what Pecker is thinking about at that investor meeting, and also as far as McDougal's concern.

[19:10:05]

BURNETT: All right. And so, Ryan, then on top of all this, the judge -- the jury, the last note, everyone, every time there's a note, everyone says, well, maybe they're actually got maybe were done here anyway. Nope. Nope, they come out and they want this.

Okay. So, can we just take a step back on this? Fifty-five pages and they don't get to look at it? I mean, I understand this is the case in every case and I want to make that clear, but that doesn't make any sense.

LITMAN: Hour-and-a-half to read. We were there when he did it. Yeah.

BURNETT: Yeah. I mean, and then they're supposed to just remember.

RYAN GOODMAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. So it doesn't make sense in a sense of that's not a smart way of handling the criminal justice system. That is the New York criminal justice, as you said it's standard protocol.

BURNETT: Right, right, no, I understand -- but if you want people to know what they're doing and then think correctly about it. It doesn't make sense.

GOODMAN: Absolutely. Yeah. The way I think of it as like myself as a lawyer, I want that document. I want to look at it and here's my computer and hard-copy. I want to circle things and highlight them and then helps me remember it, know what the elements of each of the crimes. They don't have that. They have to do it by memory, and only having been told it once.

So, now, they're actually asking for at least to be told it a second time. But that really puts it in a really strange category.

BURNETT: It also raises the question and I'm just saying it raises the question 55 pages is a lot, so I don't want to put now any kind of motivation, but among the things written on these 55 pages, Harry, is, although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

This is the entire heart of the point Ty Cobb was making last night.

LITMAN: That's right.

BURNETT: And the fact -- I'm not saying that's necessarily what they're going for, but it could be.

LITMAN: Yeah. And when we read that all the way through these last few weeks, it makes your head spin. But I actually think they -- they have of that out on Wednesday. And what the judge gave them I think was not all that complicated.

You know, you've got to do three things. They were false and bizarrely, the Trump team is fighting on what they're saying, oh, these are real -- real things. He was actually getting paid for legal services, preposterous, and, you -- these false records were done to promote some candidacy. That looks pretty strong as well, and by unlawful means. But there really the leading with one theory which is the unlawful means here is an excessive federal campaign contribution.

So all in all, I don't think you immediately go into the deep end. I think it's manageable for the jury.

I just wanted to say one thing about the call, so I agree with it -- with everything. But the calls important that Pecker takes from Trump first, it's very memorable. He's like talking to shareholders and the president of the United States is on the call.

But it does two things. I think. First, it makes clear Pecker thinks that Trump had an affair with McDougal. He says so.

BURNETT: Yeah.

LITMAN: And so it might mean they're thinking about Trump's credibility, including with Stormy. But second and more importantly, Trump tells Pecker, just go to Cohen. Cohen will take care of this. In other words, he casts, that's Trump, Cohen in the exact role Cohen said he played and makes him.

BURNETT: And that's consistent, which could be significant.

LITMAN: Yeah.

BURNETT: Mark O'Mara, I know these instructions stand out to you though again, as I go through them and 55 pages.

O'MARA: Well, they really do because it is truly an instruction booklet. And if I said to you, Erin, here is 55 pages. Read it once, and then go to not the car, go put together the piece of furniture, go do anything that you're not willing to do --

BURNETT: That's a good one.

(CROSSTALK)

LITMAN: Allen wrench, right.

BURNETT: Yeah.

O'MARA: You were saying was insane and yet not to give them an answer that you can look through it and answer their own questions, what they have about the instructions just makes no sense to me. And I think it is again, sort of grounds for an appeal with the conviction because the state can appeal over acquittal. But if there's a conviction, more grounds for appeal.

I noticed the law or the protocol in New York, but it just makes so little sense to not give them something which is so instructive and also so confusing to clear up that confusion before they make a mistake.

BURNETT: I liked the furniture assembly analogy because having put together certain IKEA items, I can -- I think everybody can now --

LITMAN: You actually did?

BURNETT: In case you -- not successfully. There's some broken part.

But, Ryan, so we're about -- when you look at the requests that came out today, where do you sort of when you take a step back and obviously maybe the jury at themselves don't know. But where do you think this leads?

GOODMAN: I think the prosecution probably thinks they're having a good day and the main reason is that in the closing statement, this strongest argument that Todd Blanche has is Michael Cohen is not credible and without his testimony at this thing is over.

The four questions suggest that have passed that hurdle. They're asking about Cohen's testimony whether or not corroborated by Pecker's testimony, they're asking about Pecker taking the call. They're asking about Pecker's arrangement with McDougal hush money payment. They've -- seems like they're not being hung up by that because otherwise it could be game over.

BURNETT: And one final question, Terri, to you -- I was just watching Trump today and he was very engaged during tapping his lawyers back- and-forth, back-and-forth. [19:15:04]

Did you notice anything about him today?

AUSTIN: Yes. Actually, I did. When he left today, at the very end of the day, he seemed deflated. He is looking at the audience, but he looked at his son, and Donald Jr. actually looked back on one of the things I noticed. It looked as though Donald Jr. was saying, are you okay? Because he did look really down and really deflated.

Now, maybe earlier he had more energy, but I think by the time all of it was said and done and he was sent to the other room while he waited to see if there were going to be any questions, he seemed very deflated.

BURNETT: That's interesting, and that exchange between him and his son.

Thank you all very much. I appreciate it.

And next, we do have breaking news. Kristen Holmes has new reporting tonight on what Trump's team plans to do if Trump is convicted. So Kristen next with this breaking news.

Plus, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in an extremely rare move, he went and wrote an entire letter to Congress to say that he will not recuse himself in cases tied to January 6 and doubling down with great detail about why it was all his wife's fault for flying the flag.

And, Putin putting the United States on notice after the Biden administration suggests it may give Ukraine the go ahead to use American weapons to strike deep inside Russia.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:20:21]

BURNETT: Breaking news -- as the jury goes home tonight without a verdict, Trump's team is behind closed doors and they are hashing out a game plan. Close aides and allies of the former president are telling our Kristen Holmes how Trump plans to respond to a possible conviction in this case.

And, Kristen is OUTFRONT now.

So, Kristen, what are you learning about what they're thinking, how they're discussing this, what their plans are?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, I'm talking to these senior advisers, they believe they've really been spending this trial from long before it even started to prepare for a potential conviction. They have been calling this election interference. You have seen Donald Trump and a number of his allies calling this rigged on the airwaves on social media, saying that this is about President Joe Biden, which obviously it is not. This was brought by the state of New York and attacking D.A. Alvin Bragg saying that he should have never actually brought this case.

And we saw a little bit of a preview of how they're going to respond if he is potentially convicted just moments ago, Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, the two heads of the Trump campaign putting out a memo outlining that because essentially they have said that this trial is, quote/unquote, rigged, that they don't believe that it's going to impact the election in November, and I've talked to a number of senior advisers who say they actually do believe that to be the case, it might move the numbers a little bit, but all within the margin of error and they don't think it's going to impact the former president when it comes time for them to cast their ballots, are voters to cast their ballots.

Now, one thing I want to point out is all we are talking about a potential conviction and we know that they are bracing for it. They're preparing for it. They are also still holding out some hope that there is a hung jury, earlier today, all around Trump's orbit. They were circulating the voting data from 2020, essentially that breaks down the percentage or number of votes that Biden got versus Trump.

But if you look at that data, it would suggest that out of 12 Manhattan residents or citizens, that there will be at least one Republican leaning voter. Now that because they believed this is completely political, gives them some hope that that jury might have one person who would be sympathetic to former president Donald Trump.

But, of course, keep in mind, Erin, this is all reading tea leaves. They have absolutely no idea. They are just hoping for the best right now, right?

BURNETT: Yeah, absolutely. All right. Kristen, thank you very much.

And I want to go OUTFRONT now to someone who knows District Attorney Alvin Bragg very well. Terri Gerstein is Bragg's close friend. She also worked with them as a prosecutor in the New York attorney general's office.

And, Terri, it's good to see you again.

So -- so, you hear Kristen's reporting and what Trump's going to do, and, of course, going after Bragg. He's been in the room. He was in there for closing and obviously for much of the case, as we were there, he really was I think only there one other time. So he really left this to Steinglass and his team in terms of the day in and day out.

But how ready do you think he is for Trump's response?

TERRI GERSTEIN, WORKED WITH ALVIN BRAGG IN NY ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE: Well, I think that that kind of statement is something that Trump has been saying all along. And I think the position that this is political is just belied by the facts in this case. There were 20 witnesses. There were mountains of evidence, a ton of documentary evidence.

When D.A. Bragg ran for office, he ran saying that he was going to put an end to two systems of justice -- one for wealthy and powerful people, and one for everyone else.

And really given this amount of documentary evidence and witness testimony to not bring the case would have been political.

BURNETT: So, that -- all that being said, its been what, just over more than two years since Bragg was sworn in as D.A. But it's been over a year since he charged Trump. And I know he has been doing a lot of other things. He's focused on guns. He's been doing a lot of other things, but losing this case would have serious implications, right?

This is in the public eye what he has come to stand for in many senses. How prepared is he for the possibility that he does not win?

GERSTEIN: Well, he's a really experienced lawyer. He was a federal prosecutor. He was a state prosecutor. You know, he knows what the legal standard is. That's all of us do, right? It's beyond a reasonable doubt and you have to have unanimity of the jury.

So I think that he is like anyone, he knows that even if you have an extremely strong case, it can go -- you know, it doesn't necessarily mean that you get a conviction.

BURNETT: So as you point out, and he's been doing this for many years in different capacities, right? But here we are the stories more than four hours in. They're clearly -- they don't seem to be close at all. They're asking for the instructions again, they're chronologically asking for information from the very beginning.

So that may not mean that they're not done, but it may signal this is going to go awhile. So, what's he doing -- do during this time, during the deliberations?

GERSTEIN: So my best guess is that he's working. He's not someone who'd be pacing or watching TV.

[19:25:00]

He's like very, very, very hard working. He was always, you know, stayed at the office really late. The office right now, the mass -- the Manhattan D.A.'s office has 30,000-plus cases. They announced indictments just this, this past month of landlords and they had a plea of employer for wage theft.

So there's a lot of work that they're doing in the office apart from this one case, right? So, 30,000 cases. I mean, that's an important number.

Now, when it comes to -- we're talking about Kristen's reporting on what Trump's team is thinking. Trump himself because of the gag order does not preclude him from personal attacks against Bragg or Merchan has done both in plenitude.

And here's just some of the things over the past few weeks during the trial that he said about Bragg.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Alvin Bragg does nothing. He goes after guys like Trump. We did nothing wrong.

Fat Alvin, right, corrupt guy, he's a corrupt and really a corrupt district attorney who's allowed crime in the city to go totally unchecked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: That's just the tip of the iceberg in a sense after this trial ends. I mean, are you concerned about that?

GERSTEIN: Well, I mean, in terms of concerns about public safety, prosecutors routinely bring cases involving people accused of murder are all kinds of violent crimes.

So I think that in terms of public safety, I'm sure that D.A. Bragg and his team are really aware of keeping him safe, keeping everyone in the office safe. You know, the personal insults that's par for the course, in terms of the actual facts, crime in Manhattan is actually down considerably since D.A. Bragg took office a couple of years ago.

BURNETT: All right. Well, I appreciate your time, Terri. Thank you very pretty much.

GERSTEIN: Thank you.

BURNETT: All right. Next, in a letter, Justice Samuel Alito refusing to recuse himself from two January 6 cases after that far right flag was seen flying at his home. I'm going to speak to Congressman Jamie Raskin next because he says he has a way that you would be able to force a leader step aside. So he'll share that.

And police in New York on alert over fears that ISIS maybe plotting to attack what's being called the Super Bowl on steroids.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:31:07]

BURNETT: Tonight, defiant Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a rare letter to Congress saying he won't recuse himself from January 6 related cases. Alito fighting back against critics who say an upside down American flags flag flying over his home in January of 2021, as well as the second flag on the property, another one of his properties used by insurrectionists on January 6 show bias.

Now, Alito says that his wife flew those flags without his awareness. And actually in the case of the inverted American flag, which was sort of a standard bearer for the January 6 crowd, he says his wife actually refused for several days to take it down after he asked her to.

He wrote to Congress and part of that, quote: My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife was solely responsible for having flag poles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years.

Okay. OUTFRONT now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, also a lawyer and a former constitutional law professor, right, and he's written an op-ed arguing that there is a way to force Alito to recuse himself from January 6 cases.

And, Congressman, I so much appreciate your time. And obviously, I want to get to your op-ed that's the heart of this.

But, first, I just as I was reading that, I don't know if my reaction was apparent anyone watching, but my wife is fond of flying flags and he asked her for several days to take it down and she didn't. What's your reaction to that?

He's written a letter to Congress essentially tripling down on its all his wife's fault.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, the ABA ethics rules governing recusal, which has been embraced by the Supreme Court in decisions relating to judicial recusal, specify that justices must pay attention both to the reality and the appearance of their spouse's potential financial and personal conflicts of interests, as well as their own.

So even if it were true and one can obviously doubt it, that he didn't realize that they had one inverted American flag and another flag that was embraced by the anti-Biden opposition and the Trump insurrectionist movement, even if he didn't know anything about it, he would still have to essentially be concerned about his wife's activities as well. And that's in the ABA rules of judicial recusal.

BURNETT: Right. And it's important as you lay it out. I'll just emphasize again for everybody that the upside down flag, he has admitted he knew about and he knew what it stands and he asked her to remove it and she wouldn't. So it's not even that I can say I didn't even know in that case. He's admitted to that.

But on this recusal issue, and you go through the ABA standards, but usually, there's a way actually, Congressman, in the Constitution and federal law to force Alito to recuse himself in these cases. What is it?

RASKIN: So there are several cases that I talked about in this op-ed the Supreme Court considers this matter of ethics, not just this discrete and esoteric field. This is constitutional. It goes right to the right of due process.

The Supreme Court has struck down cases where there were judges who were ruling who should not have been ruling because they considered it a violation of due process for them to be sitting in the chair. So if you look at the Caperton (ph) case, for example, out of West Virginia, there, you had a party before a judge and that party had spent $3 million in getting the judge elected.

And although unlike this case, you couldn't even find bias that was expressed by the judge, the court said the objective circumstances required recusal in that case because the partisan alignment was so clear between the judge, and between the party in the case.

And so, there are other cases like that, but this one is clearer than any of them really, where you get a judge and/or his wife basically wearing their political heart on their sleeve.

[19:35:06]

BURNETT: Yeah.

RASKIN: What does that say to the parties before them?

BURNETT: Well, it also seems at the very least, just the perception of it, right, that you would hope the Supreme Court justices would care so deeply about that, and to preserve institutions in this country, especially at a time when they're under such assault, that he may come to a different conclusion.

But he got -- he says actually, Congressman, in his letter, quote, any reasonable person he says who is not motivated by politics, or again, I quote, or a desire to affect the outcome of the Supreme Court cases, any reasonable person who would conclude he doesn't need to recuse himself.

RASKIN: Yeah.

BURNETT: What do you say to that?

RASKIN: Well, it's interesting he uses that language because any reasonable person is basically the standard that's used in terms of recusal. The Supreme Court says, it's not a subjective test. Alito and Thomas, who's involved arguably in an even more complicitous situation in terms of his wife's political activities, but they seem to think that it's up to them. They can decide for themselves.

But what the Supreme Court has said is that this is an objective test, not a question of subjective introspection and will on the part of the particular judge. And any reasonable person would look at this situation and say, these judges at the very least have a deep appearance of bias in these cases, you know?

And if you look at the Pennsylvania case which I discussed, that the Supreme Court decided, there, again, the court said it's not a subjective test. It's an objective test. And then in looking at it, there are a whole series of criteria that are borrowed from the ABA.

And then they also said, finally, that it's not enough to say, well, it's just one justice out of nine because it's not just their vote, which would be unethically, unconstitutionally cast. It's their ability to influence the other justices as well, which is so problematic.

BURNETT: Right. Of course, as you point out, as ripple effect.

Congressman, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

RASKIN: You bet. BURNETT: All right. And next, a massive security presence in New York

tonight, as fears are growing that ISIS-K may be plotting to attack a major global sports competition.

And we also tonight of a special report on Putin's war in Ukraine. And here's the truth, it may actually be now giving America's military the major boost.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are modernizing through the support that we're giving to the Ukrainians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:41:24]

BURNETT: Tonight, a massive security presence in New York after a chilling new threat from ISIS-K, the terror group posting an image referencing a stadium on Long Island and the date of June 9. That is when the Cricket World Cup is underway.

Now, this is a massive global event, matches over 11 days, a stadium that holds 34,000 people. And now, local police are responding.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK J. RYDER, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE COMMISSIONER: When you got a game and a crowd as big as this, everything is credible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, John Miller, our chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst.

And, John, so -- I mean, cricket obviously, people in the U.S. may not be as familiar with it, some people. But around the world, nothing is bigger, right? This is a massive event, 34,000 people fitting in the stadium over 11 days. People flying in from all over the world.

So, what are you learning?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, the threats against this from ISIS and ISIS Khorasan and remember for context, ISIS has been severely degraded since, you know, the U.S. and its partners have been warring against them. But ISIS Khorasan has held on through this, which is the group that does their external attacks and what have they done? The attack in Iran at General Soleimani's memorial service? The attack against the shopping mall in Moscow where the mall burned down, and so many were killed. So --

BURNETT: Right.

MILLER: -- when they are in the threat business, that's something that Pat Ryder, the police commissioner of Nassau County, takes seriously.

We saw the first threats come in in April, but the one that showed the stadium with imagery of drones flying over it that came in yesterday with additional information has really caught their attention.

BURNETT: And I will also say, when you point out the Moscow attack, that was an attack that the United States had gotten word. I've had warned up Putin about, and they ignored that warning. But the point is, the warning was real no warning then present and it was a specific even that it could happen in that place.

So the warnings -- warnings can be very well. So, you're also talking to your sources. I know about preparations for the moment the verdict is announced, and downtown, obviously. So what do you expect from that?

MILLER: So I think that when the verdict is announced, I believe that's going to be on a very short leash, which is, you know, sometimes when you have a racially charged case in order to move police resources and, you know, they'll give you several hours. In this case, what I'm hearing from the people down there in the court officers and the NYPD is they're expecting something much shorter, like maybe 30 minutes. They've reached a verdict. They're going to have them in and so on, enough time for people who are a couple of blocks away having a cup of coffee to get back to the courthouse.

But I also think the NYPD is very flexible in terms of what they call mobile field forces. They have between five and eight of them on all the time. And there'll be able to bring in a fairly large number of police just as a precaution, if they think they need to but since the first day, it has been relatively quiet there.

BURNETT: Yes, it has. You know, a little a little busier today, I guess I would say then some days, but usual crowd.

MILLER: But I think, and predictable threat, if there is a conviction. And there's no suggestion that we know the outcome. What will happen on the day of sentencing. That's one that's going to be a little more intense if it comes to pass.

BURNETT: Right. All right. John, thank you very much.

And next, the U.S. suggesting it could allow Ukraine to use American weapons to strike deep inside Russia, which has Putin tonight leveling a new warning to Washington.

And Ivanka Trump, a noticeable no-show at Trump's trial today. Why she's keeping her distance.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:49:14]

BURNETT: Tonight, Russia threatening to speed up missile production, condemning, quote, increasingly aggressive NATO policies, which comes as a growing list of NATO allies now say that Ukraine can use their weapons to strike inside Russia. That used to be absolutely verboten, but that's totally changed now, France, Germany, Poland, all dropped that restriction.

And for the first time today, Antony Blinken, these U.S. secretary of state, signal that the United States could join them. And it comes as the U.S., of course, is ramping up weapons deliveries to Ukraine, and here's the thing about that. It's actually giving the U.S. military a major boost.

And Oren Liebermann and has this story that you'll see first here OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just outside Dallas, Texas, test rounds of artillery ammunition are rolling off a new U.S. production line.

[19:50:01]

The goal of the U.S. is to produce 100,000 155-millimeter artillery shells like these a month by the end of next year. This facility alone, when it's at full capacity and up and running for the next 12 months will make nearly a third of that, 30,000 shells a month.

The U.S. has committed more than $51 billion in security aid to Ukraine since the start of the war, the weapons go to Ukraine, but the vast majority of the money comes right back into the U.S. and manufacturing facilities, jobs, and production.

CHRISTINE WORMUTH, U.S. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: I think what we've seen from the lessons learned Ukraine is that all of us, the United States, are NATO allies, need more munitions. We need bigger stockpiles. Conflicts can be more drawn out than we thought.

LIEBERMANN: And when one weapon from U.S. inventories goes to Ukraine, another newer weapon takes its place Bradley infantry fighting vehicles sent into the thick of the fight will be replaced by the latest models of the armed and armored systems, counter-battery radars Ukraine has used to defend against incoming fire will make way for you newer radar systems.

And ATACMS missiles that Ukraine has used a strike deep within occupied territory are to be replaced with advanced longer-range precision strike missiles.

As we send weapons to Ukraine, the us replaces them with either newer variance or newer system, it is a way of modernizing the us military.

WORMUTH: That's right. I like to say were not going to replace old with old. We're going to replace old with new. We are modernizing through the support that we're giving to the Ukrainians.

To feed the Kremlin's war, President Vladimir Putin has placed Russia's economy in a full war-time footing, trying to out produce the West. And what is becoming a grinding war of attrition. Russia spends nearly 7 percent of its GDP on defense, with plans to go

even higher, far more than the U.S. or any Western nation, even if Russian weapons are lower quality on old military adage, says that quantity has a quality of its own.

When Russia burned through its own supply of artillery ammo to quickly, North Korea sent millions of rounds that made their way to the front lines. Iranian Shahid drones have expanded an already deadly Russian arsenal and the Kremlin wants more.

U.S. effort to produce weapons at the speed of war took precious time, close the gap. For years, the U.S. relied on decades old plants like this one in Scranton, Pennsylvania, to make artillery rounds. A World War II era defense industrial base, it suddenly fell far short.

This new artillery plant as part of a surge and weapons production that isn't done yet. The pressure on the U.S. to supply Ukraine's military as it modernizes its own.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): It took two years from start to finish to bring us here. And now, we're just in the process building that the munition stockpile that we need not only to help our allies in Europe and elsewhere, but to deter countries like China and Iran and North Korea.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LIEBERMANN (on camera): Its not just artillery, ammunition that's being ramped up in terms of its production, the U.S. also has a goal of producing 650 Patriot missiles a year, up from only 100 now.

And, Erin, these are absolutely weapons in demand not only by Ukraine, but by others. It very much reminds me of what FDR once called the arsenal of democracy.

BURNETT: All right. Oren, thank you very much.

It was really incredible if you think about that, 650 Patriots had been 100. Think of a part of this war that many were not aware of.

Oren, thank you so much there on the ground in Texas.

And next, where is Ivanka Trump? She is not at her father's hush money trial though siblings are there. How come?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:57:40]

BURNETT: Tonight, where is Ivanka? Don Jr. was with his father's today as the jury was deliberating. He has been there. Eric's been there. You know, at times, I've been in the courtroom, Eric's been there. Tiffany Trump's been there, all sitting in the front row during closing arguments, and other days they'd been there.

But there's been one glaring absence then when you talk about them, and that is Ivanka.

Jason Carroll is OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ERIC TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON: So I stand here today as his son.

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Donald Trump's children speaking out for their father on this critical week of closing arguments and jury deliberations in his criminal trial.

E. TRUMP: Forget about politics for a second. I've been in that courthouse with my father almost every single day. It is an insanity. It is an embarrassment. It's an abomination to democracy and to our republic and yet it continues.

CARROLL: Tiffany Trump joined her brothers for the first time outside court Tuesday, but missing from the public sibling show of support, Ivanka Trump.

E. TRUMP: And he'll be vindicated. Thank you very much.

REPORTER: Is your sister coming? Is she planning on coming?

CARROLL: No response to shouted questions about whether their sister, Ivanka, who today has not shown up to court, was planning on making an appearance. Her husband, Jared Kushner, has also been absent.

Pretrial in March, the couple and the former president spotted at a UFC event in Miami. Over the last seven weeks since the trial started, various Instagram post showed a couple in places such as Miami and Mexico, often with their children.

Their absence may be notable, given both were familiar faces during Trump's first presidential campaign, and both became presidential advisers in Trump's White House.

But back in 2022, Trump made it clear she didn't plan to be as involved in this campaign saying: I love my father very much. This time around, I am choosing to prioritize my young children and the private life we are creating as a family. I do not plan to be involved all of the in politics.

Trump's children are school age and a source now telling CNN, she has concerns about them now being old enough to understand what's happening and their grandfather's criminal trial.

And she's not the only high-profile Trump missing from court.

REPORTER: Where's Melania?

CARROLL: The former first lady, Melania Trump, also a no-show during the criminal trial, perhaps no surprise given the sorted accusations.

As for Ivanka Trump, since her own father and siblings have repeatedly pushed the narrative that this is not a case about seeking justice --

E. TRUMP: This is political lawfare and it absolutely has to stop.

CARROLL: So if it's politics at play, Trump has said she wants no part of it, saying: While I will always love and support my father, going forward, I will do so outside the political arena.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARROLL (on camera): And a source telling CNN that both Ivanka and Jared have not ruled out making some sort of an appearance before the verdict is read, but, of course, that means they haven't ruled it in either.

BURNETT: Right, and there's not much time.

CARROLL: No.

BURNETT: Likely.

All right. Jason Carroll, thank you.

And thanks so much to all of you.

Anderson starts now.